Jihad Report Mar 31, 2018 -Apr 06, 2018

Attacks 28

Killed 142

Injured 172

Suicide Blasts 4

Countries 9

There have been 6,053 days since September 11, 2001. There have been 32,686 Islamic attacks.

Larry Kudlow Repeats Agnew Statement

Saturday, March 23rd, at 11:47 PM on Earth Radio in Jacksonville, Florida I stated that the Omnibus budget was a Trojan horse piece of legislation. It was fashioned to look like a military horse, and it was stuffed full of Democrats reeking of apple-tinis. It was designed and built by globalist staffers and interns and timed to take away the President’s power of veto. They knew he had to sign it, or his military would be unfunded. I also stated that just because money was budgeted, did not mean it had to be spent. The President still has a sort of line item veto, when it comes to budgets. It’s called recension. Larry Kudlow said Trump administration officials were “planning” to rescind some of the $1.3 trillion spending bill passed by Congress.

Kudlow said, “There’s planning in the White House. My friend OMB director Mick Mulvaney, I’m an ex-OMB guy, I feel his pain. We are looking at an enhanced rescission package. I’m not going to use numbers. This is all around town.”

He continued, “I think the Republican Party on the Hill has finally figured out it’s really not a bad idea to trim some spending because after all spending can lead to deficits, and spending interferes with the economy, and President Trump is a deregulator and a tax cutter. We want and much more modest government role.”

The Democrats will sue, but they will lose, because this and this alone is in the President’s purview.

The New American Civil War has Begun

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE SUBJECT: Delegation of Authorities under Section 3136 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I hereby delegate to the Secretary of Energy, in coordination with the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence, the functions and authorities vested in the President by section 3136 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91). The delegations in this memorandum shall apply to any provisions of any future public law that are the same or substantially the same as the provision referenced in this memorandum. The Secretary of Energy is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register. DONALD J. TRUMP

California has, for many months, and especially since the appointment of Becerra, been systematically nullifying federal laws in their State.

California prides itself on being first with progressive laws on climate change, labor rights and marijuana. In 2018, the Golden State’s “firsts” are defensive – bold proposals and legal maneuvers to protect citizens from Donald Trump.

State leaders have pushed legislation and lawsuits to circumvent and undo Trump’s agenda on immigration, the environment, internet freedom and other liberal causes. One of the most consequential victories came Tuesday when a judge in San Francisco blocked the Trump administration’s plan to end a program that allows 800,000 undocumented people to study and work in the US.

At the same time, activists have also launched grassroots campaigns to shield residents from the White House’s attacks – and to pressure local Democrats to do more to mobilize the largest state against the president.

ImmigrationCalifornia lawmakers have adopted the most expansive “sanctuary state” law in the country, restricting police from questioning people about

citizenship status and limiting cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice).

The state has also taken the Trump administration to court to challenge his travel ban on Muslim-majority countries and his decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (Daca) program.

A US judge in San Francisco sided with California on Tuesday in the Daca battle, ruling that the Obama-era program that protects “Dreamers” – undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children – must remain in place.

 The immediate goal is to provide a first line of defenseMaria Sofia Corona-Alamillo, attorney

But Trump – who has a reputation for being vindictive and has openly expressed disdain for California – is on track to retaliate. Ice already arrested hundreds in targeted raids in sanctuary cities last year, and the agency’s acting director has promised to ramp up deportations in the state this year, even suggesting California politicians should be prosecuted.

Across California, vast networks of attorneys and volunteer advocates have formed, leading the resistance to Ice on the ground, sometimes saving lives in the process.

It there any basis in fact for this? No. Obama actually  deported more immigrants than any other president, the need is even greater now with Ice indiscriminately picking up people in raids, according to Maria Sofia Corona-Alamillo, an attorney working with the Los Angeles County Rapid Response Network.

“The immediate goal is to provide a first line of defense for community members that are facing removal from the country and imprisonment in government-run detention centers, which we for many reasons find inhumane.”

Last year, she said the network mobilized after Ice agents showed up to an auto repair shop with guns drawn and, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, arrested a group of workers even though they had a warrant for only one individual. Ice declined to comment to the news media who tried to convict them in the court of public opinion.

This person they were looking for was an ex-felon that should have been handed over to ICE upon his release from prison. The State’s authorities

were blocked from doing so, which meant ICE agents had to go into the community at very high risk to search for this person and apprehend him.

Jennifer Lee Koh, an attorney with the Los Angeles network, said she represented a Mexican immigrant who was apprehended after being released from jail for larceny and threatened with deportation last year. Instead of the typical outcome of removal, the network helped the man, who has three young children, get temporary relief. It is unclear whether he has reoffended.

Mexican activists are claiming a right to exist inside America, even without any authorization. They use clever words in their public statements, which are designed to make the law look like it is oppressive for trying to keep communities safe from foreign citizens who have committed violent crimes, such as rape, larceny, battery, human trafficking, and murder. “We counter this climate of fear and terror that a lot of these enforcement actions bring to these communities,” said Hamid Yazdan Panah, attorney coordinator with the Northern California Rapid Response Network. This is very typical rhetoric used by activists.

There is more legislators could do to proactively protect immigrants, activists argued. Koh urged California’s governor, Jerry Brown, to issue more pardons to immigrants threatened with deportation due to previous criminal convictions. That is exactly what he did.

Some have argued that stricter enforcement of sanctuary rules is necessary considering that even in liberal jurisdictions like Los Angeles and Oakland, local police have been caught continuing to assist Ice. Governor Brown has now ordered the arrest of any law enforcement employee who assists ICE in apprehending any foreign citizen convicted of a violent crime for deportation.

Javier Hernandez, director of the Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice, said California should provide “universal representation” – ensuring access to lawyers for all immigrants facing deportation: “Give everyone a fair chance to fight.”

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said he plans to fight the Trump administration in court on its decision to include a question on citizenship in the 2020 census.

The question, which would ask residents in the U.S. to disclose whether they are in the country legally, will "derail the integrity of the census," Becerra has warned.

"We're prepared to do what we must to protect California from a deficient census," Becerra said. "Including a citizenship question on the 2020 census is not just a bad idea

—it is illegal," the attorney general said in an op-ed published in the San Francisco Chronicle.   The question on citizenship has not been used in the census since 1950. However, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced his intention to reinstate it in a memo shared on the Department of Commerce website."For the approximately 90 percent of the population who are citizens, this question is no additional imposition," Ross wrote in his memo. "And for the approximately 70 percent of non-citizens who already answer this question accurately on the [American Community Survey], the question is no additional imposition."

The Department of Justice, led by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, had pushed for the question to be included on the 2020 census, according to a report from ProPublica.

Bacerra

A secret server is behind law enforcement’s decision to ban a former IT aide to Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz from the House network.

Now-indicted former congressional IT aide Imran Awan allegedly routed data from numerous House Democrats to a secret server. Police grew suspicious and requested a copy of the server early this year, but they were provided with an elaborate falsified image designed to hide the massive violations. The falsified image is what ultimately triggered their ban from the House network Feb. 2, according to a senior House official with direct knowledge of the investigation.

The secret server was connected to the House Democratic Caucus, an organization chaired by then-Rep. Xavier Becerra. Police informed Becerra that the server was the subject of an investigation and requested a copy of it. Authorities considered the false image they received to be interference in a criminal investigation, the senior official said.

Data was also backed up to Dropbox in huge quantities, the official said. Congressional offices are prohibited from using Dropbox, so an unofficial account was used, meaning Awan could have still had access to the data even though he was banned from the congressional network.

Awan had access to all emails and office computer files of 45 members of Congress who are listed below. Fear among members that Awan could release embarrassing information if they cooperated with prosecutors could explain why the Democrats have refused to acknowledge the cybersecurity breach publicly or criticize the suspects.

House Democrats employed Awan and four family members for years as IT aides. After learning of the House probe, Awan and his wife, Hina Alvi, frantically transferred money to accounts in their native Pakistan.

Awan and Alvi were indicted in August on fraud charges related to the transfers, but they have not yet been charged with criminal cybersecurity violations partly because some of the 45 Democrats have been passive about helping build the case, the House official said.

Each House member’s data is supposed to be stored on his own server, but Imran moved files to a computer that was only supposed to hold the files of the administrative office of the Democratic Caucus, the senior official said.

In the spring of 2016, House administrators became aware that the Awans were allegedly falsifying purchase orders. They followed the trail and found that the misconduct extended to a major cybersecurity breach.

By the way, All of the 44 House democratic leaders, who hired Pakistani nationals to work as IT aides, exempted these questionable employees from the recommended background checks. Imran Awan and his family members were among the server administrators who were given a pass.

According to a report by an inspector general, they collectively had access to the emails and files of 1 in 5 House Democrats.

In place of a background check, a House security policy allows offices to claim that another member vouched for them. Who vouched for these people?

Abid Awan’s background includes a $1.1 million bankruptcy, six lawsuits, and at least three convictions for DUI and driving on a suspended license.

Imran and Abid, who are brothers, reportedly owned a car dealership that received $100,000 from a Hezbollah-linked Iraqi government official who is a U.S. fugitive. Dr. Ali Al-Attar was a minister in the Iraqi government.

The dealership, whose business name is ‘CIA’ or Cars International A, appeared to be a money laundering scheme, with fake profile pictures on Facebook. The car dealers would borrow cars from a nearby dealership to broker any sales.

Drug Enforcement Agency officials learned that an Iranian terrorist group often used car dealerships to launder money and fund terrorism.

Approximately $7 million in congressional pay and large amounts of equipment disappeared from Congress under the Awans.

Wayne Black, private investigator and law enforcement supervisor, believed that Imran Awan was probably a foreign intelligence operative.

Investigations revealed that they logged into Congress members’ accounts, despite not working directly for them.

Other IT aides identified include another brother Jamal Awan, Imran’s wife Hina Alvi, and close personal friend Rao Abbas.

Hina Alvi was employed as a staffer and was paid over $168,000. Rao Abbas was paid over $85,000. The high paying gigs raise questions about the amount of money members of Congress can pay for services and the amounts that are usually earned for equal positions in the private sector.

Are there any American IT professionals that could have benefited from such lucrative deals?

Typically the argument is made against American companies that use foreign workers to drive down wages, not make six-figure incomes.

Jamal Awan was only 20 when he started working part-time for various members of Congress, earning over $165,000 a year according to House payroll records. Abid Awan did not go to college, and Rao Abbas had been fired from McDonald’s. Imran Awan’s lawyers stated that they were trained on the job by Awan.

The Awan family were permitted to enter the United States under the Diversity Visa Lottery program, and were paid millions of tax dollars in total.

Investigations into the Awan scandal were halted after testimony suggested that elected officials were lying. Reports indicated that the 44 democrats all had their information stolen. The information uncovered suggests that it was sensitive information, and not personal.

One of the more prominent names in the 44 democrats, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, is currently pushing more gun control, introducing a bill that would require background checks on Americans purchasing ammunition.

She was also chair of the Democratic National Committee, and has described cyber breaches as an “act of war,” and “an assault on our democracy.”

Wasserman Schultz continued   to employ Imran Awan for six months after he was fired and banned from the House servers. She has defended her decision despite Awan being arrested while trying to flee to Pakistan.

The House security policy 16 requires quarterly reviews to be conducted on “privileged users.” Before the policy was enacted, members including Krysten Sinema had dropped the Awans, citing incompetence.

According to the Daily Caller, none of the 44 would say who vouched for the Awans. The Awans are known to have personal relationships with Reps. Gregory Meeks and Marcia Fudge. Employers include Rep. ted Lieu of California, who is on the Foreign Affairs Committee and three members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Information from 17 members was believed to be stolen and stored on a server, which was later physically stolen.

Xavier Becerra, who ran the House Democratic Caucus, had his server physically stolen after the Inspector General’s report cited it as evidence in a hacking probe.

Democratic leadership apparently misrepresented this whole affair as simply being theft, which lead the 44 members to not take protective measures that are typical after a breach.

And on Jan. 24, 2017, Becerra vacated his congressional seat to become California’s attorney general. “He wanted to wipe his server, and we brought to his attention it was under investigation. The light-off was we asked for an image of the server, and they deliberately turned over a fake server,” the senior official said.

“They were using the House Democratic Caucus as their central service warehouse … It was a breach. The data was completely out of [the members’] possession. Does it mean it was sold to the Russians? I don’t know,” the senior official said.

Capitol Police considered the image a sign that the Awans knew exactly what they were doing and were going to great lengths to try to cover it up, the senior official said. The House Sergeant-at-Arms banned them from the network as a result.

The senior official said the data was also funneled offsite via a Dropbox account, from which copies could easily be downloaded. Authorities could not immediately shut down the account when the Awans were banned from the network because it was not an official account.

“For members to say their data was not compromised is simply inaccurate. They had access to all the data including all emails. Imran Awan is the walking example of an insider threat, a criminal actor who had access to everything,” the senior official said.

The executive director of the Democratic Caucus was Sean McCluskie, who was Becerra’s chief of staff and is now chief deputy attorney general of California. McCluskie did not return TheDCNF’s repeated requests for comment.

Despite Democrats’ acute awareness of the importance of cybersecurity after the Democratic National Committee’s emails appeared on Wikileaks in July 2016, the employing members have gone to great lengths to avoid condemning Awan or have

said nothing about whether they checked their office data’s security following the breach.

“After being notified by the House Administration Committee, this individual was removed from our payroll. We are confident that everything in our office is secure,” a spokesman for Michigan Democratic Rep. Sander Levin told The DCNF in February. Levin’s chief of staff Nick Gwyn refused this week to square the assessment with the secret server and Dropbox arrangement.

A spokesman for Ohio Democratic Rep. Marcia Fudge said in August that she terminated Awan after learning of the criminal investigation but claimed “there’s no indication that he stole information or did anything inappropriate.” Fudge’s spokesman would not clarify the August statement this week.

Since Fudge and other members have not acknowledged that the breach occurred, there is no reason to think they took action to investigate where their data might have gone and mitigate any harm to constituents and others.

Wasserman Schultz has acknowledged that chiefs of staff were informed that the Awans were under investigation for what she characterized as “data transfer violations.” She refused to fire Awan even after he was banned from touching official computers, and she used a May 17, 2017, budget hearing with the House Chief Administrative Officer to attack authorities for not stopping her from breaking the Dropbox rule.

“I am more than happy to admit that I use Dropbox. I have used it for years and years and years. It is not blocked. I am fully able to use it,” she said. Administrators told her they had clearly communicated the rules to IT aides, but instead of faulting Awan for not following them, Wasserman Schultz lashed out at the House for “just lobbing e-mail into a tech person’s inbox.”

The senior official said the Awans’ enterprise-scale use of Dropbox was not the casual use of a popular consumer application, but the funneling of huge quantities of data offsite where it could not be taken back by House authorities.

Becerra was one of five members who first hired Awan in 2004, his first year on the Hill. Only two of the five — Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York and Becerra — remained in office through 2016, and each of them later put two of Awan’s relatives on their payrolls as well, including his wife Alvi and brother Abid.

When Becerra became chairman of the Democratic Caucus in 2013, that office began paying Alvi $25,000 to $30,000 a year in addition to the payments from Becerra’s personal office, meaning he was responsible for far more of the payments to the Awan family than any other member.

One aspect indicating obstruction of justice at the highest levels is that the Awan scandal unfolded into the public area in mid-2016 before the Presidential election, and it received little or no press coverage, other than here on X-Squared Radio. This should have affected the appointment of the California Attorney General of California, Xavier Beccera. With only a few more exceptions, Becerra’s role in this catastrophic breach of national security has gone virtually unexamined by the media.

In September, the Daily Caller revealed that the Capital Police’s decision to ban the Awan’s from Capitol Hill was based on the existence of a “secret server”. The server was connected to the House Democratic Caucus, which at the time, was chaired by Rep. Xavier Becerra, the current Attorney General of California.

Police contacted Becerra’s office, notifying him that the server was the subject of an ongoing investigation, and promptly requested a copy of it. However, what Capital Police received from the now California Attorney General’s office was described as an, “elaborate falsified image designed to hide the massive violations.”

According to one senior official, when Becerra vacated his congressional seat on January 24, 2017, “He wanted to wipe his server, and we brought to his attention it was under investigation. The light-off was we asked for an image of the server, and they deliberately turned over a fake server”.

Authorities considered the falsified image of the server they received to be an act of overt interference in an ongoing criminal investigation.

The official stated that, “They were using the House Democratic Caucus as their central service warehouse … It was a breach. The data was completely out of [the members’] possession. Does it mean it was sold to the Russians? I don’t know,” the senior official said.

According to the Daily Caller, Becerra was one of five house democrats who first hired Imran Awan in 2004, and would later hire Imran’s brother, Abid, as well as Imran’s wife, Hina Alvi. In 2013, upon becoming chairman of the Democratic Caucus, Becerra would begin further paying Alvi an extra $25,000 to $30,000 a year, in addition to payments from Becerra’s personal office.

As the Caller points out, this means that the current Attorney General of California is personally responsible for far more payments to the Awan family than any other Democratic member of Congress.

Two weeks ago, five House Republicans from the Freedom Caucus held a hearing regarding the ongoing investigation into the Awan family. The former House IT staffers were employed by over 30 Democratic members.

Representatives of the House leadership, who have yet to offer any support for a formal investigation into the ongoing scandal, were absent from hearing when Freedom Caucus members Louie Gohmert (TX), Jim Jordan (OH), Steve King (IA), Ron DeSantis (FL), and Scott Perry (PA), interviewed Luke Rosiak of the Daily Caller and Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch.

Rosiak, the journalist responsible for breaking coverage of the Awan scandal, opened the hearing by voicing his concerns regarding the continued silence from Capitol Hill in relation to the unfolding allegations of misconduct. He said that there had been “substantial misinformation put into the public realm about this matter, both maximizing it and minimizing it.”

Rosiak went on to explain that investigators have learned that Imran Awan and his family had not only accessed a congressional server without authorization 5,400 times, but that Imran Awan would conduct House IT work for months at a time while he was located in Pakistan.

Rosiak’s statements were followed by Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton, who added: “The best-case scenario ain’t all that great. You had an ongoing criminal enterprise operating under the noses of 40 House members, and the responsible administrative officials here in the House of Representatives, and put all of the details of his scandal aside, inflammatory details, what is the House doing right now to make sure this isn’t going on right now?”

According to Sara Carter, of Circa, Fitton expressed concern that the Justice Department might not raise these issues for fear of embarrassing members of both parties.

After hearing about Imran’s access to congressional servers while in Pakistan, Rep. Gohmert (TX) responded: “I did not realize that we had someone who would live in Pakistan and get paid the maximum that any House employee could get paid and he was doing his information technology work, his computer work, for the House of Representatives from Pakistan. This is just mind boggling,”

Rep. Perry (PA) also chimed in, voicing concerns regarding an increasingly overt two-tier justice system. Perry explained: “My concern is the wife… she’s got fourteen grand in cash. She’s allowed to leave the country. You know, a lot of my constituents, I mean, if they have an administrative violation, they’ll have OSHA sweep in… We have a Justice Department, FBI… the ferocity with which laws are enforced– it’s just not the uniform lately.”

Rep. King (IA) stated, “that Democratic members of Congress who serve on intelligence committees would, by the nature of their work, correspond about sensitive information.”

His sentiments refuted claims made by former DNC chairwoman, Rep. Wasserman-Schultz, who argued that the Awans did not have access to any sensitive material.

The concerns expressed at this latest hearing, or the issues surrounding California Attorney General Xavier Beccera, are extremely significant in terms of national security. That the press has shown so little interest in the scandal is alarming. Disobedient Media will continue to report on revelations stemming from the Awan scandal as they unfold.

Requests for Imran Awan Trial Postponement

California Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, along with Debbie Wasserman Schultz, they initially hired the Awans' family to work as IT Techs for the House Intelligence Committee and in other sensitive government positions. Research shows that they (Imran's Family) were paid 4 times the pay scale for IT Techs with their background and training, they were also given money from Becerra's personal committee office; when the Capitol Police informed Becerra that they were conducting a criminal investigation into Imran and his family, Becerra interfered with the investigation by sending the Capitol Policean elaborate fake copy of the sever that he was informed to hand over. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was also televised nationwide, as she threatened the Capitol Police to return over her computer that Imran had left inside one of the Capitol building rooms, showing that he also had access to Debbie's computer codes, along with 80 other congressional members.

The internet is lighting-up with all kinds of theories and conclusions about why the Imran

Awan's criminal trial is being removed from court dockets and postponed. The Gateway

Pundit and hundreds of online news organizations are hitting the press. A confidential

source has provided a very valid explanation for what is going on. Becerra is running for

Attorney General of California and sources state that California Department of Justice

employees and democrats are pushing the Courts to postpone the Imran trial until after

Becerra is supposedly elected as California Attorney General. Confidential sources

states that Becerra's involvement will be commuted if he is elected, including questions

regarding the death of Seth Rich who was identified with Imran Awan the night he was

killed.

SETH RICH WITH IMRAN AWAN

Subscribe

The postponing of the Imran criminal trial is a political move to help

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra get elected and voted into office,

says one source. The mainstream media news organizations are quiet about

Becerra's criminal involvement with the Awan's scandal and interfering with

a criminal investigation. There are literately millions of people in California

that has no clue about who their Attorney General is, or his background.

There is only one journalist, H.A. Goodman, who is actually writing and

producing content about the Awan's scandal and Becerra's alleged

involvement. H.A. Goodman is a writer, author, and credible columnist and

you can find a lot of his videos about Seth Rich and Xavier Becerra on

Youtube and other search engine platforms.

Seth Rich was murdered. The Washington Police claimed he was robbed,

which was debunked right away because nothing was taken. The FISA

Memo shows that Hillary Clinton and the DNC was aware that Seth Rich

leaked the data to Wikileaks Julian Assange and he then published the data

online, which led to the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and

Donna Brazil. The DNC wanted Seth Richdead because he exposed their

corruption and he was talking to federal investigators. Qunon, a very

credible source, stated that Hillary Clinton hired two MS-13 gang members

to kill Seth Rich. Imran Awan was with Seth Rich the night he was

murdered and sources says that Imran was the look-out guy for MS-13.

Imran pointed out Seth Rich to the killers that night. Hillary Clinton and the

DNC closed the circuit by killing the two MS-13 gang members they hired,

therefore, closing any lose connections and creating a perfect murder

scheme.

California is plagued by corruption and cleaning the swamp won’t be easy!

He has occupied the office of Attorney General of California by

appointment, not election.  Xavier Becerra must be stopped from running

for a seat as the top law enforcement cop in this state, because we know

what he has done. This demand is being posed right now, tonight on X-

Squared Radio to Californians because Becerra should not be allowed to run

for this position, due to his background and criminal activities with the

Awan data mining and foreign marketing operation.

Xavier Becerra and Debbie Wasserman Schultz hired the Awan's family and

they gave them top secret access to confidential U.S. electronic data and

then both Debbie and Becerra protected them from the Police. Some of the

members escaped with millions of dollars to Pakistan during this protection

process. California Governor Brown knew of these crimes, knew he had in

his possession the evidence the police were seeking, and knew that the

DNC was implicated in the collection and sale of top secret government

information. Brown appointed him anyway. To this day, the server and all

the information on it is sequestered away from police investigators. It is

from this platform of high crimes that Bacerra operates his terroristic

litigation of the Trump Administration. It must be stopped tomorrow

morning with his arrest by Federal Marshalls.

The Globalist War Against Free Elections

China’s legislature voted almost unanimously on Sunday, March 11 in favor of changing the country’s constitution to remove presidential and vice-presidential term limits, formally allowing Xi Jinping to stay on as head of state beyond 2023.

The National People’s Congress passed the constitutional amendments with 2,958 votes in favor, only two against, and three abstentions. One ballot was invalid. A total of 2,964 votes were cast.

In addition to scrapping the two-term limits, the roughly 3,000 NPC delegates in Beijing also said yes to the following:

Inclusion of “Xi Jinping Thought”

Not only was Xi given the green light to remain as president beyond his second term, which ends in 2023, but his “Xi Jinping Thought” was also voted into the charter. His guiding ideology for the country will be joined in the document by former president Hu Jintao’s “Scientific Outlook on Development”.

Official recognition of Communist Party leadership

The undisputed authority of China’s ruling Communist Party was further underlined at Sunday’s vote, with the addition of a line in the charter stating that its leadership is “the most essential feature of socialism with Chinese characteristics”.

Approval of National Supervisory Commission

The new disciplinary body, along with its subordinate units at the provincial, city and county levels, was endorsed as a new branch of state governance, alongside the existing executive, judicial and prosecutorial departments.

The national body will answer to the NPC. The lower-level units will report to the local legislatures that elect them and their higher-level supervisory commissions.

Addition of Xi’s phrases

As well as the broader “Xi Jinping Thought”, several more of Xi’s ideas, concepts and policies were inserted in the constitution. They include: “new development model”, “social and ecological civilisation”, “harmonious and beautiful”, “modern and powerful [country]”, “achieve the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation”, “shared destiny of mankind” and “promote core socialist values”.

Just as a matter of history, in case you forgot, Chairman Mao Zedong, founder of the People's Republic of China that still stands today, qualifies as the greatest mass murderer in world history. Called the Great Leap Forward, the nation was facing a famine, compared the systematic torture, brutality, starvation and killing of Chinese peasants to the Second World War in its magnitude. At least 45 million people were worked, starved or beaten to death in China over these four years; the worldwide death toll of the Second World War was 55 million.

This is what happens when elections are ended, and the people are disarmed.

Today, Hungarians are voting. A spokesman for the Prime Minister has warned the Hungarian officials that subversive organizations sponsored by billionaire financier George Soros are working to blackmail the country into accepting mass migration. He is doing exactly the same thing in America as we speak. He is also financing propaganda groups and activists to force laws into existence, even on local levels, to confiscate American private weapons.

Labelling a leaked European Union paper a “Soros report” designed to force Hungary to bow to EU pressure to accept mass migration and other dictates from Brussels. Zoltán Kovács said Hungarians would never accept the demands. They built a fence across their border in a matter of weeks to prevent the invasion from the Middle East that has all but ruined the rest of Europe.

Remarking that changes proposed to the Dublin regulations which govern the movement of asylum seekers within the bloc would soon make Hungary taking migrants mandatory. Kovács recalled how, “In recent weeks and days, several statements have been made concerning the systematic attempt to break Hungary that the Soros organisations are trying to achieve using various instruments.”

He added: “We arrived at the latest stop in this process on Wednesday, when the European Parliament’s report that is in preparation against Hungary, and which will be presented next week, was leaked.”

Hungarian news portal Népszava revealed some of the content of the leaked report Wednesday, which outlines the potential to punish Hungary with Section 7 proceedings — the same type being used against Poland’s conservative, populist government — for defying Brussels edicts.

For rebellions such as refusal to meet EU requirements on accepting mass migration, accusations of violations of university freedom, freedom of assembly and association, social rights, and alleged “everyday corruption”, the European Union could stop money going to Hungary, or even insist Hungary repays funds already given.

Poland and Hungary Unite Against Eurocrats: ‘We Don’t Want to Live in an Empire’

Dr. Gyorgy Bakondi, chief adviser for homeland security to Prime Minister Viktor Orban and one of the key architects of Hungary’s highly-effective border wall, explained why resisting the EU’s migrant directives was so important to his country.

“Despite all reports to the contrary, the domestic security situation has worsened practically everywhere throughout Europe, and the difference

between the state of immigrant and non-immigrant countries is clearly visible,” he said.

“Every characteristic of immigrant countries can be seen in Western Europe: acts of terrorism, and an increase in the number of assaults against women and common law offences. But the people living there did not have the opportunity to vote on admitting migrants, however the people of Hungary have already voiced their opinion on the matter during the course of the National Consultation.”

London Violence Documented to Surpass New YorkDespite the absence of guns in London, kitchen knives are being used by black gangs to murder people on the streets. Law enforcement officials in London have had to investigate more murders than New York over the last two months, the BBC reported on April 3.

According to police records, 15 murders occurred in London in February, one more than in New York. The trend repeated itself in March when Scotland Yard reported 22 murders in London against 21 in New York.

In a statement expressing his concern, London Mayor Sadiq Khan hoped to reassure Londoners that the city remains one of the safest in the world.

Although the UK does not have the type of rampant gun violence as in the US, there is has been a surge in the number knife stabbings in recent years. In 2018, 37 out of 47 murders in London were the result of knife attacks.

The UK’s Home Office is due to take a series of measures to restrict access to certain types of blades and knives, including banning online purchases.

To date, Khan has no called a single family of the slain, or attended a single funeral. No statement has been made about the violence being caused by a massively dense population of Muslims that have taken every spare room in the city.

The Border Wars Part TwoThree things happened in rapid succession after Trump denounced the insurrection of California.

1. Hundreds of National Guard troops from Texas and Arizona began deploying to the Mexico Border overnight Friday into Saturday, with "very many more" in a number of other states placed on "72 hour ready-go" notice for additional deployments. President Trump has pledged to secure the southern border from Illegal Aliens and Drug Smugglers - - it has officially begun.

Mattis approves sending 4,000 National Guard troops to border according to a newly signed memo from Defense Secretary James Mattis.

The memo authorizes the use of Title 32 and Defense Department dollars for up to 4,000 National Guard personnel to support the Department of Homeland Security’s “southern border security mission while under the command and control of their respective governors through September 30, 2018.”

2. Trump signs memo ending 'catch and release' immigration policy

President Donald Trump signed a memorandum on Friday ordering the end of a policy, known as "catch and release," in which illegal immigrants are released from detention while awaiting a court hearing on their status. As part of the memo, Trump asked Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to produce a list of military facilities that could be used to detain illegal immigrants.

The memo signed by Trump orders the Department of Homeland Security, in coordination with other agencies, to submit a report to the president within 45 days "detailing all measures that their respective departments have pursued or are pursuing to expeditiously end 'catch and release' practices."

The memo also instructs departments to share information on any contracts to construct or operate detention facilities along the border as well as steps taken to assign asylum officers at detention facilities, among other measures.

As part of the order, Trump is requesting "a detailed list of all existing facilities, including military facilities, that could be used, modified, or repurposed to detain aliens for violations of immigration law at or near the borders of the United States."

Trump has also directed Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to identify any other resources or steps "that may be needed to expeditiously end 'catch and release' practices."

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders characterized catch and release, the practice of paroling detained immigrants who await a court's determination on their status, as "dangerous."

The president can legally utilize the Guard though two legal statues: Title 32 or Title 10. Title 10 of the U.S. Code federalizes the Guard and gives the president full

control of the troops. Federalized Guard troops may be deployed anywhere in the world.

Under Title 32, Guard troops may be used within the continental U.S. to perform homeland defense activities. The federal government pays for the costs of the operation, but the governor retains ultimate command and control of the troops.

Trump’s memorandum specifies that his administration will use Title 32 to request Guard troops at the border, meaning that the governors must consent. Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen noted Wednesday that the federal government plans to work closely with governors.

Governors have refused presidential requests to deploy National Guard troops in the past. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declined to send additional National Guard troops to the California-Mexico border in 2006, citing concerns that other parts of the state could be vulnerable in the case of a natural disaster.

While Title 32 does not give the president full command of Guard troops, it allows for more flexibility in the type of work that the forces may do. “The benefit of the Title 32 status from the perspective of the feds is those soldiers are not constrained by the Posse Comitatus Act,” William Banks, a law professor at Syracuse University and retired director of the college’s Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism, said.

3. Attorney General Orders "Zero Tolerance" on Illegal Border Crossers

On Friday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered a zero-tolerance policy be enacted toward immigrants unlawfully entering the Southwest border between the U.S. and Mexico.

Sessions notified all federal prosecutors along that part of the border of the new policy in a memo Friday and directed them to make prosecuting criminal immigration offenses a priority. He also directed prosecutors to work with the Department of Homeland Security to develop guidelines for prosecuting offenses under immigration law.

The Department of Justice said the new policy is in response to a report from the Department of Homeland Security that showed a 203 percent increase in illegal border crossings from March 2017 to March 2018 and a 37 percent increase from February 2018 to March 2018 — the largest month-to-month increase since 2011.

“To those who wish to challenge the Trump Administration’s commitment to public safety, national security, and the rule of law, I warn you: illegally entering this country will not be rewarded, but will instead be met with the full prosecutorial powers of the Department of Justice,” Sessions wrote.

“The situation at our Southwest Border is unacceptable,” Sessions said in the statement.  “Congress has failed to pass effective legislation that serves the national interest — that closes dangerous loopholes and fully funds a wall along our southern border,” Sessions added.

The Mexican Response

You would think with all the problems Mexico has had with losing 15% of its population as it flees the violence and corruption from drug violence, that they would be supportive of President Trump’s actions. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Mexican Senate instead nearly unanimously passed a resolution seeking an end to bilateral cooperation with the U.S. against drug cartels and immigration problems after President Trump ordered National Guard troops to the border.

The resolution was passed in a unanimous fashion and sent to the White House, Members of the U.S. Congress, and Mexico’s Foreign Relations Officer, El Universal reported.

“Despite everything that is at stake in the relationship between our two countries, the way in which President Donald Trump has behaved is, for the Mexican people, unacceptable and intolerable,” El Universal quoted from the document.

The resolution demands that President Trump respect the people of Mexico, and notes the Senate “condemns the unfounded and offensive expressions about Mexico and Mexicans and the treatment that is needed for a relationship between neighboring countries, partners, and allies.”

Other portions of the resolution reject efforts to “militarize the border with Mexico” and considered the measure offensive. In the third portion of the resolution, the Senate calls for Mexico to stop any binational cooperation with the U.S. in dealing with immigration matters and fighting transnational organized crime (cartels) until Trump “acts with civility and respect.” As though Mexico has ever had binational cooperation with the US on immigration.

What is painfully clear now, is that the Mexican Senate is as addiction to Drug Cartel cash as though they had the needle in their arms themselves. I expect similar verbiage

from America banks who have been laundering hundreds of billions on cartel cash for more than 40 years.

They use words like "respect the Mexican people" in their resolution as if that somehow justifies halting all cooperation against narco-traffickers. The proof is in my #2 best-seller, Charm of Favor. Wachovia, Wells Fargo, and HSBC have all been busted and fined for laundering Drug cartel cash. Loretta Lynch and James Comey were top echelon players with the HSBC bust, and their outstanding effort at securing a deferred prosecution won them the top two law enforcement jobs in the Obama Administration a few months later.

Let's face it, Trump deploying troops to the border IMMEDIATELY cuts off the routes for human and drug smugglers. Cutting off the routes, cuts off the cash for many people in Mexican, Central and South America governments. This is the kind of pressure that causes desperate people to do desperate things. The beast is backed into a corner. It is mad. And we are about to approach it to put it down.

OK, so what does the Syndicate do when it is pressed for a few months? That remains to be seen. I suspect they will not give up. They will fight, but they will not fight fair. We must not lose our resolve. This is a war for the Republic, and as you can see, it is being fought on multiple fronts. If you ever thought about disarming yourselves and giving up your guns rather than facing a group of angry teenagers with tide pods and clear backpacks, think again. They are being played. You are being played. If you want to know what to do, read the book. The ending depends upon you.

Chappaquiddick: Prelude to a Scandalhere is nothing like historical context to help evaluate and better understand current events. So, in regard to the mainstream media’s breathless, non-stop coverage of the self-levitating Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy theory, consider this bit of trivia:

In 1991, when Russian President Boris Yeltsin opened the archives of the Soviet Central Committee, Western researchers quickly descended on Moscow to plow through the treasure trove of previously classified official documents.

Among those researchers was Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times and the BBC who found a May 14, 1983 letter from KGB chief Viktor Chebrikov to Soviet General Secretary Yuri Andropov. Bearing the highest security classification, it summarized a confidential offer by Senator Ted Kennedy to the Soviet leadership to help stop President Ronald Reagan’s aggressive, anti-Soviet defense policies.

The letter was written as the debate was heating up over Reagan’s proposed deployment of intermediate range missiles to counter the Soviets’ medium range weapons in Eastern Europe.

Sebastian reported his find in an article titled “Teddy, the KGB and the top secret file” which appeared in the February 2, 1992, London Times. And there the story remained unheeded and unheralded until 2006 when historian Paul Kengor published The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism in which he discussed Kennedy’s secret approach to the Soviets.

In an appendix to his book, Kengor reproduced Chebrikov’s classified missive unedited and unabridged along with extensive documentation establishing its authenticity.

Marked “Special Importance” and bearing the heading “Regarding Senator Kennedy’s request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party Y. V. Andropov,” the letter reported that former California Senator John Tunney had secretly reached out to the Soviets on behalf of Kennedy. According to the Chebrikov, Kennedy was “very troubled” by poor U.S.-Soviet relations which he blamed on “Reagan’s belligerence.” Kennedy was reported to be “very impressed with the activities of Y. V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders.”

“According to Kennedy,” reported Chebrikov, “the current threat is due to the President’s refusal to engage any modification to his politics.” That refusal was exacerbated by Reagan’s political success, which made the president more obstinate and re-electable. The memorandum then recites Kennedy’s advice that “The only real [political] threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations. These issues, according to the senator, will without doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”

As set forth in the letter, “Kennedy believes that, given the state of current affairs, and in the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan.”

One step would be for Andropov to invite Kennedy to Moscow for a personal meeting. Chebrikov stated, “The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.”

Chebrikov stated that Kennedy recommended a public relations program to help the Soviets improve their image with the American public. He believed that the Soviets’ problems resulted from their inability to counter Reagan’s “propaganda.”

According to Chebrikov, “Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year [1983], televised interviews with Y. V. Andropov in the USA” to make a “direct appeal” to the American people. In this regard, Chebrikov stated that “Kennedy and his friends” were willing to help and listed Walter Cronkite and Barbara Walters as good candidates for interviews with Andropov.

The letter advised that implementation of this plan was a matter of urgency since Reagan was well on his way to re-election in 1984. It concluded with a discussion of Kennedy’s presidential prospects in that year and noted that Kennedy “underscored that he eagerly awaits a reply to his appeal.”

As author and historian Paul Kengor has observed, “if the memo is in fact an accurate account of what transpired, it constitutes a remarkable example of the lengths to which some on the political left, including a sitting U.S. senator, were willing to go to stop Ronald Reagan.”

So, what was the reaction of the mainstream media when this explosive document was made public? According to Kengor, not a single American news organization picked up the London Times story.

Similarly, when Kengor published his book which discussed and reproduced the letter, he “couldn’t get a single major news source to do a story on it. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC. Not one covered it.” And “all mainstream sources” turned down his proffered op-eds regarding Chebrikov’s letter.

Think about that. Here is a classified document found in the Soviet archives from the head of the secret police to the General Secretary spelling out an outrageous political plot by Kennedy to enlist the Soviet Union’s assistance in his campaign for the presidency. And not one major media outlet uttered so much as a peep about it.

The discovery of Chebrikov’s letter describing Kennedy’s media advice to Andropov and his efforts to make the Soviet Union a partisan political ally was in and of itself worthy of media coverage. But, beyond that, consider the subtext and clear inference to be drawn from what Kennedy was reportedly telling the Soviets about Reagan’s major point of political vulnerability,i.e., “the problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations.”

Did Kennedy, in effect, actually tell the Soviets to ratchet up the threat of nuclear war as a means of helping him defeat Reagan? If so, had he taken into account the fact such increased tensions could take an unexpected turn and inadvertently result in such a war? Was he actually willing to risk that in order to win the presidency? Or was Kennedy of such limited intelligence

that he didn’t comprehend the dangers posed by his secret outreach and suggestions to the Soviets?

Regardless of the answers, it is astonishing that not one media organization saw fit to ask these questions or to even report the discovery of this explosive document. And the fact that it has remained unreported by the mainstream media all of these years is itself a scandal and quite telling.

The media’s failure to even report or discuss the discovery and contents of Chebrikov’s letter is but one more example of their dishonesty. The fact that they have ignored this story should tell us all that we need to know about their integrity, fairness, and allegiance to the truth. How many more examples of their blatant bias do we need before we completely discount all of their reportage as nothing more than progressive agitprop and propaganda?

As a wise man once said, if the mainstream media didn’t have double standards, they would have no standards at all. For proof of that statement, one need only to compare and contrast the media’s fevered, unhinged coverage of the alleged Trump-Russia collusion theory with the protective cone of silence it has placed over “Teddy, the KGB and the top secret file.”

The Other Kennedy AssassinationOne of Donald Trump’s best friends was assassinated. He was I the way of Hillary Clinton. He was the odds on favorite for the office of Senate at a young age. But, months before the announcement could be made, a change of plans was initiated. It would be logged officially as pilot error. But, the files became available to his best friend, Donald Trump, when he became president. The following is the actual FBI evidence from the event. Again it was buried in bureaucracy. Again, the truth was suppressed. Again, it was the opposition research arm of the Clinton Crime Syndicate that paved the way, opened the door, and made it impossible to stop her.

Why the FBI is Dodging NunesThe left used to get very worked up about the CIA’s interference in foreign elections. Liberals would quote solemnly the work of Philip Agee, a CIA turncoat who wrote articles and books about the agency’s manipulation of this or that foreign election. But these days ACLU-style liberals shrug at the meddling of John Brennan’s CIA in the 2016 American election, mischief that the FBI is still trying to conceal.

It was reported recently that the FBI refuses to show Congressman Devin Nunes an unredacted copy of the origination document that triggered the probe into the Trump campaign. What is the FBI hiding? Paradoxically, nothing — that is, no classified

information showing collusion between Trump and Russia. The FBI is simply trying to hide the embarrassingly partisan origins of its spying on the Trump campaign.

Were the redactions covering material harmful to Trump, that material would have been leaked by now. So the redactions can only be concealing the fingerprints of Hillary’s partisans in the Obama administration. The FBI will eventually have to fess up to the politicization to which it succumbed — that the most virulent Hillary partisan imaginable, John Brennan, had put pressure on FBI officials to start the probe, that a Trump hater, Peter Strzok, formally opened up the probe, that the smears of a paid opposition researcher for Hillary, Christopher Steele, contributed to the probe, that scandalous “intelligence-sharing” between Brennan and foreign intelligence agencies shaped the probe, and that FBI officials suspected the probe was unfounded but pursued it anyways at the insistence of Obama officials.

The FBI says it is redacting “sensitive information.” That’s true in an ironic sense: the FBI is very sensitive about the information, in that it illuminates the agency’s transformation into an opposition research shop for the Hillary campaign. Take her partisans out of the picture and the probe would never have started.

In an attempt to sanitize the probe, the media has attributed its origin to a drunken conversation between an Aussie diplomat and a minor Trump campaign volunteer. But that’s a joke. Maybe the FBI threw that into the pot at the last minute, but John Brennan had been stirring it for months before then. As Brennan told Congress, “we were uncovering information intelligence about interactions and contacts between U.S. persons and the Russians. And as we came upon that, we would share it with the bureau.” Notice his use of “we” in that statement. By “we,” Brennan meant his retinue of Hillary partisans at the CIA who had been shaking foreign intelligence agencies down for any dirt on Trump.

The British intelligence, in cahoots with Brennan and Christopher Steele (who was on Hillary’s payroll), figured largely into this mischief. In all likelihood it will come out that the “information” British intelligence shared with Brennan was just recycled Steele material. The “allies tipped us off to Trump-Russian collusion” storyline is a sham, designed to distract attention from a chain of Hillary partisans who in the thick of a campaign were circulating smears among themselves and calling it “intelligence sharing.”

It was the blinding, viscerally personal hatred of Brennan for Trump, perhaps more than anything else, that turned all those phony “tips” into a counterintelligence probe. In the grip of that kind of feverish antipathy, combined with his desire to continue as CIA director under Hillary, Brennan could convince himself of any Trump monstrosity and made it his mission to prod the FBI into harassing him. Anyone who doubts that hatred should just take a look at Brennan’s Twitter account these days. This week he is rattling on about Trump’s “self adoration.” Also take a look at the people he is following on Twitter. They make up most of the cast of Obamagate, from James Comey to Samantha Power to Sally Yates to Susan Rice, not to mention the newest cast member,

Obama chief of staff Denis McDonough, whose exposure is yet another product of Nunes’s refusal to accept redacted material from the FBI/Justice Department.

But it wasn’t enough for Brennan to push the FBI investigation. He also had to publicize it, which he achieved through another person in Christopher Steele’s orbit, Senator Harry Reid, whose Super PAC, as the Daily Caller reports, was run by the very Hillary lawyer who hired Steele’s services. Brennan briefed Reid on the beginnings of the FBI investigation he instigated, knowing that Reid would leak the contents of the briefing to the press.

About this astounding meddling in an election by a CIA director, the Philip Agees of the left have fallen completely silent. But that makes sense. After all, how can old radicals inveigh against the CIA as a “wilderness of mirrors” when it is John Brennan’s reflection in it?

Disarming AmericaAs you might know by now, I am working a consulting contract with a Fortune 500 Company up here in Illinois. Not far from here is the village of Deerfield, Illinois. You also probably figured no one would care about their new gun laws. After all, why would anyone object to restrictions on magazines and so-called “assault rifles” anyway, especially in a little town like Deerfield? Who needs those Second Amendment rights, anyway?

Luckily for the people of Deerfield, and for armed Americans, the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action has joined the fight. The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) today announced support for a lawsuit brought by Guns Save Life challenging the Village of Deerfield, Illinois’ gun confiscation ordinance. The lawsuit challenges Deerfield’s recent attempt to criminalize so-called “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines” within village limits. This new ordinance orders the confiscation of virtually every single semi-automatic gun ever made, except the 1911-A1, which only has a 7-round capacity. Even the Ruger 10/22 would be confiscated.

“Every law-abiding villager of Deerfield has the right to protect themselves, their homes, and their loved ones with the firearm that best suits their needs,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA-ILA. “The National Rifle Association is pleased to assist Gun Save Life in defense of this freedom.” This freedom has been protected for 375 years. No tyranny can exist with an armed populace.

To be clear, the NRA didn’t initiate this lawsuit. That honor belongs to the group Guns Save Life.

What the NRA does bring to the table are vast resources, including money to pay for lawyers, which may well be needed. Make no mistake, anti-gun groups will be taking

this cause up, as well, making Deerfield, IL a veritable battleground in the Second Amendment fight. This is what they do. It is a proven technique for disarming nations called terroristic litigation. Keep suing, until the community is bankrupt.

Deerfield villagers have that right to stand as sovereign citizens, presenting an unwavering phalanx against tyranny. The AR-15 is a stylish and useful tool for home defense. They use a standard 223 caliber bullet that is the most popular round in the nation. If the style of the weapon intimidates the person in its sites, then it has already accomplished its purpose, without firing a single shot. Now, that’s not to say everyone should own one, but they are great for that purpose. It’s up to each family to figure out what, if anything, meets their needs. Handguns, shotguns, rifles, whatever. It should be the individual’s choice, not the government’s. No government likes it, because it restricts its ability to push its populace around.

Deerfield has restricted that choice. Deerfield has made it so that people have fewer options for self-defense, and for some, the AR-15 or a similar rifle is the best option. With the regulation in place in that community, it deprives residents of their most effective means of self-defense. This is just one of the many problems with gun control.

What happens is someone who knows nothing about guns decides what you – someone who may well have studied the subject extensively – need and don’t need for whatever purpose. They push for and pass laws that restrict your choices and then sleep easy believing they’ve made the world a better place. Rarely is that true, especially when we’re talking about firearms.

Meanwhile, you don’t have the best tools possible to defend your family. A busybody do-gooder with delusions of adequacy has made that impossible, all so he can pat himself on the back.

Laws like these need to be struck down. They need to go the way of the dinosaur because, much like the dinosaurs, they’re fossils of an earlier age. Unlike the dinosaurs, however, gun control laws have never really fit in any real niche except in the deluded minds of those who propose them. In the real world, we see little evidence of them ever working.

So I’m glad the NRA-ILA is a part of this. While I have never been a member of the NRA, the assistance they are providing Americans in Deerfield affect every single person in the world. How is that? Because America is the champion of freedom and liberty on Earth. Once we are disarmed, that champion will be defeated, and all mankind will be once again enslaved. Removing the second Amendment will allow the globalists to remove the rest of our rights.

Scott Pruitt: Giant Killer

If you have read Charm of Favor, you will already know that the EPA is one of the most powerful and terrible Federal agencies every created. Formed and led by a man named William Ruckleshouse as a personal sledge hammer with gruesome power, he quickly became and remained one of the most powerful men to have ever lived. He controlled forests, rivers, mines, the air that we breathe. He even owned ever single trash can emptied in America. That is power.

It not only has power, but that power has a secret weapon. They call it science, but it is actually a craft of lies and deception. I have sat across from EPA officials with 40 years on the force. I inquired as to the procedure for certifying an electric vehicle for use on the American highway. All day, they lied to me. Not one single test procedure was legitimate. The labs that do their testing, had no idea how to do the tests, and could not answer a single question about how they certified other vehicles. Everything they said, and everything they did was a lie for one purpose and one purpose only. To cost the most money possible, to keep competitors of the major carmakers off the road.

Now, that Agency that has crushed American industry to powder under its iron shoe, is under control of a giant killer. The questions are simple. Should the public be allowed to know how bureaucrats develop policies that have major impacts on our lives? Or should we simply be left in the dark?

That seems like a silly question, right? Hopefully, the answer is obvious.

For some though—including Gina McCarthy, a former Environmental Protection Agency administrator from the Obama administration—transparency seems to be overrated.Recently, current EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced that his agency would no longer allow the use of secret science in developing federal regulations. Specifically, the agency will only use scientific studies to develop regulations when the data and methodology for those studies are made accessible to the public.

This also means the EPA will only fund studies that make this critical information available to the public.

Sounds good—so what’s the problem?

According to McCarthy and her former EPA colleague Janet McCabe, there are a lot of problems. In a recent New York Times op-ed, the two former EPA officials voiced their objections to Pruitt’s attempt to promote open government and public participation in rule-making.Here are four of their objections, and why they’re wrong.

Claim 1: Pruitt “alone will decide what is and isn’t acceptable science for the agency to use when developing policies that affect your health and the environment.”Response: Actually, the new EPA policy specifically ensures that everyone, including the public and other scientists, can have input on what is acceptable science. Their real problem is that it does exactly the opposite of what some critics would like, which is to give bureaucrats complete authority over what counts as sound science.Claim 2: “Peer review ensures that the analytic methodologies underlying studies funded by the agency are sound.”Response: There’s no way for the public to know whether a specific peer review process has been effective and properly addressed potential problems. Their argument completely ignores the fact that these studies are not being used by the EPA so that academics can discuss abstract and unimportant concepts with each other while pondering their navels. These studies are being used as the basis for public policies that have serious real-world impacts on the lives of Americans.It’s also important to recognize that even the bureaucrats themselves who may have access to the data and methodology will benefit from hearing different views on the data and methodology, including from other scientists. Public participation in the rule-making process isn’t just there for show, but to actually help inform and shape the decisions made by the agencies.

Claim 3: “Some of those studies, particularly those that determine the effects of exposure to chemicals and pollution on health, rely on medical records that by law are confidential because of patient privacy policies. … The agency also relies on industry data to develop rules on chemical safety that is often kept confidential for business reasons.”Response: Confidential information can be redacted. If it isn’t possible in some situations, then there are ways to conduct studies to avoid privacy concerns. If those conducting studies would like their work to influence a rule-making, they will adjust accordingly.Further, the principle of open government and public participation isn’t something that can be thrown away just because some officials want to use studies that they like. These officials and critics may buy into the idea that technocrats should run the administrative state, but most people hopefully still think our country shouldn’t be run by self-proclaimed experts without accountability and oversight.

Claim 4: “Mr. Pruitt—who is a lawyer, not a scientist … ”Response: So what? The big problem is these critics either don’t understand or appreciate our nation’s principles of an open and participatory rule-making system.****

The critics appear to think there’s no need for open and accountable government when it comes to science—the public should just leave this work to the experts and trust federal bureaucrats. They also apparently think the bureaucrats are always objective and wouldn’t use questionable science to support their preferred policy outcomes.Besides this view being laughable—especially given the extreme politics and disregard for the rule of law that persisted in the Obama EPA—it is beyond arrogant. Even the

“experts” could use the public’s feedback and the expertise of other researchers and scientists.

McCarthy and McCabe assert that this EPA fight against secret science exists because “the Trump administration has put the profits of regulated industries over the health of the American people.”

They say this even though the EPA’s new push for transparency would work against the administration if that were their grand plan. After all, the EPA won’t be able to use secret science to help any industry now.

Pruitt deserves credit for once again taking the lead to reform a major regulatory process problem at the EPA. Now, other agencies should follow the EPA’s lead and stop using secret science as well. But most importantly, Congress needs to put an end to the use of secret science for good.

Of course, friends of the EPA, who are also friends of the global, multi-billion dollar corporations who depend on them to keep competition out of the market, want Pruitt to be fired. By any means necessary. And if they can’t fire him, they want him dead. He has had more death threats than any other Agency head; ever. The threats are so frequent, and so credible, that he must charter aircraft to make his meetings, and uses Skype and other means for the rest. The Progressives hate him almost as much as they hate his boss, if that were possible.

Mortality: A step through heaven

I guess of all the questions that have plagued me, and there have been many, the one about mortality is the most intriguing. The how, I figured out when I was nine. It’s amusing to see people still wrestle with that one. Why, is the one that has occupied my consciousness more than anything. Why do we become mortal?

Priests say it is because were evil. We were cast down for our pride and wickedness. Scripture says we were created in God’s image, but that we have no ability to please Him no matter what we do. In the mean time, we fill the basket with out penance, and we feign at repentance in a frustrating process of self-deprecation. As if it were not clever enough of a trap, the grand inventor of religion installed a natural hatred for all other religions, making it completely impossible for man to figure out which one, if any, held the purpose of life.

Ah, that is the greatest questions of all, isn’t it? The purpose of life itself is not even the question. What are we supposed to accomplish? Well, that is not the purpose of tonight’s program. Why we come here, or to any world, in mortal form is the greatest consideration in the universe. In fact, it may well be the reason why universes exist in the first place.

Einstein once protested such thoughts, saying, “The Moon does not exist, just because a mouse looked at it.” To which I answered, “But for the muse of a mouse why would the Moon exist?”

I prefer a campfire for such thoughts, but he preferred a little pipe tobacco and a dab of scotch. I picked up the scotch to enhance these thought experiments, but preferred cigars. The 18th of April, 1955 Albert’s old body took its last breath. 39 days later, I took my first.

Perhaps there is only enough room on a planet for a handful of souls who can change the world. Yes, a world is quite a bit different than a planet. Maybe there are only a few souls that can change worlds. I’m not sure, but I do know that wherever they are, things are never the same. For some, the wickedness cannot be fathomed. For far fewer, the ability to heal, to share hope like air to the drowning man, to open the secrets and mysteries of exaltation itself are given. But only in mortality are these gifts manifested. Only in the limited view of time, like an ever curving road, do we grow and mature.

Perhaps you have been taught some wrong things about mortality. I hear some crazy notions on the fake stream news every day. Things like white privilege. Or things like income inequality or who would be insane enough to bring a child into this world so why not kill the baby while it cannot make a sound. Sad things. Bad things. Wrong things.

I have at times walked through the carnage and wondered who gave such orders or created such diversions from truth. I learned that the process of becoming mortal is not only the greatest use of energy ever attempted, and that the intelligence necessary to design that process makes the thinkings and doings of mankind utterly insignificant. Still, it was designed. The genius of it was that it was deeply flawed, dangerous, and capable of limiting the view of the intelligence. One had to develop the ability to remember who they were, and also to be able to observe time.

There is no “now.” There is everything, or nothing, but there is no now. We are the only beings on this planet that can consider time. Every other creature on this world is locked into the exact moment of physical existence sand cannot consider a millisecond before or after that moment.

To consider a moment, is to observe it. To observe it, is to put one’s energy into it. To insert one energy into the past or the future, is to change it. Just because you looked at it. If you manipulate it with intention, you can actually change it. If many souls at once observe the same moment in the past or the future, that change can be profound.

Drake Equation: Estimating the Odds of Finding E.T.By Elizabeth Howell, Space.com Contributor | April 5, 2018 10:06pm ET

Astronomers use the huge Arecibo Observatory, a radio telescope in Puerto Rico, to study the close flyby of Earth by asteroids.

The Drake Equation is used to estimate the number of communicating civilizations in the cosmos, or more simply put, the odds of finding intelligent life in the universe.

First proposed by radio astronomer Frank Drake in 1961, the equation calculates the number of communicating civilizations by multiplying several variables. It's usually written, according to the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI), as:N = R* • fp • ne • fl • fi • fc • L

N = The number of civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy whose electromagnetic emissions are detectable. R* = The rate of formation of stars suitable for the development of intelligent life.

fp = The fraction of those stars with planetary systems.ne = The number of planets, per solar system, with an environment suitable for life.fl = The fraction of suitable planets on which life actually appears.fi = The fraction of life bearing planets on which intelligent life emerges.fc = The fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space.L = The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.

The challenge (at least for now) is that astronomers don't have firm numbers on any of those variables, so any calculation of the Drake Equation remains a rough estimate for now. There have been, however, discoveries in some of these fields that give astronomers a better chance of finding the answer.

The recent discoveries of rocky worlds near Proxima Centauri (a star of the Alpha Centauri system) and TRAPPIST-1 have increased the public's attention on the search for life. These stars, however, are red dwarfs that might be too volatile for life. More study is needed to understand where life might be possible, and whether it could persist long enough to communicate with other civilizations.

Exoplanet discoveries

Astronomers certainly could imagine the existence of other planets outside the solar system in 1961, but it took until 1995 until the first confirmed exoplanet was found around a main-sequence star Called 51 Pegasi b, the discovery ushered in a new era when astronomers were able to track down many other planets across the universe.

Traditionally, planets have been found through two methods: watching them transit across a star (which causes a dimming that can be measured from Earth) or examining the gravitational wobbles the planets induce as they orbit around their parent star. More recently, a technique called "verification by multiplicity" allows astronomers to quickly identify multiple-planet systems.

Estimating the total number of planets in the universe is difficult, but one statistical study suggests that in the Milky Way, each star has an average of 1.6 planets – yielding 160 billion alien planets in our home galaxy. (The study used a technique called gravitational lensing that observes changes in light curves when a relatively nearby star passes in front of more distant objects.) [Related: 13 Ways to Hunt Intelligent Aliens]As of March 2018, more than 3,708 exoplanets have been confirmed. The vast bulk of them were due to an observatory called the Kepler Space Telescope, which scrutinized a single spot in the Cygnus constellation between 2009 and 2013 before switching to its K2 mission, which rotated between different locations in the sky. Plumbing the data, astronomers continue to make discoveries from the information.

Suitable for life?

While Jupiter-sized planets are easier to spot in telescopes due to their large size and effect on their parent star, emerging research from the Kepler Space Telescope suggests that rocky planets are extremely common. A slew

of Kepler discoveries announced in February 2014, for example, mainly contained super-Earths, or planets that are slightly larger than Earth and are considered by many astronomers to be habitable under the right conditions. ("Habitability" is usually defined as the zone around a star in which a rocky planet can maintain liquid water on the surface.)

Among the planets discovered by all telescopes, however, only a tiny fraction of them are likely to have an environment suitable for life. Astronomers can't measure this metric for sure yet, but a few factors likely come into play, such as how close a planet is to its parent star and what its atmosphere contains.

As of March 2018, the Habitable Exoplanets Catalog has 53 planets that "optimistically" could be suitable for life, and among those, 13 that are more likely to be habitable. The project is a part of the Planetary Habitability Laboratory at the University of Puerto Rico at Arecibo."These are artistic representations of all the planets around other stars (exoplanets) with any potential to support surface life as we know it," the catalog states below an illustration of the planets. "All of them are larger than Earth and we are not certain about their composition and habitability yet. We only know that they seem to have the right size and orbit to support surface liquid water. ." [Related: 5 Bold Claims of Alien Life]Finding life outside of Earth — even microbial life — would be an important step toward better understanding the Drake Equation. Astronomers in fact have not given up on finding life within our own solar system. There are several areas that could host habitable environments now, or did in the past, such as the planet Mars or Jupiter's moon Europa.A next step would be determining how to send a message to extraterrestrials and whether they could receive or understand it. On a small scale, astronomers have beamed messages to the stars and in a few cases, put discs on board spacecraft (such as Voyager) for anyone in the neighborhood to read and potentially find Earth for further communications.

Red dwarf stars

The catalog of known exoplanets also contains a number of planets circling red dwarf stars, which are smaller and dimmer than our own sun. It was easier to spot a planet blocking the sun as it goes across its face, from Kepler's past vantage point. It also was easier to confirm if the planet was indeed a planet, since a planet orbiting a smaller star will exert a stronger tug visible in radial velocity measurements. 

Since red dwarfs produce less energy than the sun, any rocky planets in the habitable zone must huddle closer to the star to get enough heat to maintain liquid water on the surface. Two discoveries in particular attracted a lot of public attention. In 2016, astronomers discovered a rocky planet orbiting Proxima Centauri, a member of the Alpha Centauri star system that is only

four light-years from Earth. Then in 2017, seven Earth-sized rocky planets were confirmed around the star TRAPPIST-1, which is only 40 light-years from Earth. Some of those planets may be in the habitable zone.

Emerging research on red dwarf stars, however, suggests they may not be very friendly for life. In the example of Proxima Centauri b, the planet is so close to its star that scientists suggest it may be tidally locked. This means one side of the planet always faces the star, and the other side always faces space. One side of the planet would be very hot, and one side of the planet very cold, unless there are winds to distribute the heat around. These conditions are challenging for life.

Even red dwarf stars in general may be troublesome locations. They are more volatile than our sun, particularly when they are young. The stars can send out flares and also coronal mass ejections, which are charged particles. Over time, CMEs can slowly rip away an atmosphere by removing molecules from the top, according to 2017 studies led by the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland. Even if a star doesn't send out CMEs, there's a chance it will blast out X-ray radiation, which could kill any life on the surface.Astronomers are carrying out studies of red dwarf stars to determine how dangerous they may be, but further studies of these systems may require future telescopes. Starting in 2018, NASA's TESS (Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite) will study closer and brighter stars than Kepler did, potentially generating dozens of potentially habitable planets. And the agency's James Webb Space Telescope will launch no earlier than 2020, with the ability to look at some planets' atmospheres in the infrared to learn more about their composition. Meanwhile, the European Extremely Large Telescope (E-ELT) is under construction in Chile, with first light expected in 2024.